You prove my point.<quoted text>
Even if this is historically accurate, it doesn't invalidate the merit of the argument (genetic fallacy). In fact, I just made a similar argument myself as to why it is not only logically accurate to use the words "atheist" and "agnostic" as many of us are now doing and recommending do, but perhaps also strategically sound.
Why shouldn't atheists reframe the argument? We don't concede that privilege to our detractors.
And yes, atheism is the default position in the debate over the existence of gods. That's why most agnostics are atheists. If you can't be certain either way, you should not accept god claims.
So what? Some think they're wrong. Some think we're refining a flawed concept.
Once again, so what? Yes, there is work to do to get some unbelievers to embrace the word "atheist" after being raised to think of atheists as vile, corrupt, liars, none of whom are any good, and who are the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers. That's how the church framed the issue.
The attempt to re-brand atheism is not an intellectual argument - it is a rhetorical argument and a strategy, not an attempt to elucidate.
Atheism is not the default position, and carries the same burden of proof as theism.
Atheists should make their case intellectually, not by sleight of hand.